MISTRIAL/CONVICTION: Ft. Hood soldier's case to carry AR15

[EEllis]

I wonder if the jury even got to see that video. In all that we've seen I can't see any RS to do what that officer did. It would be to that department's advantage to inform the public what that RS was. If this is what they are hanging their hat on then it's pretty thin to transparent.

Well I read a reporters account of the officers testimony, paraphrased of course, and there the main reason for the stop was the call and that the rifle was on a chest sling. You can argue about what difference that makes for RS but I've never heard any court cases about how it would affect RS and my searches came up with nothing. The whole point of carrying a rifle in such a manner is to be able to use it quicker like if you carried a gun at low ready. It definitely would be much more disconcerting walking up on someone carrying like that versus slung over the shoulder. Also mentioned in the second trial was that Grisham was walking on the wrong side of the road and could receive a ticket for doing so. So without anything else that would enable a custodial stop all on it's own and thus allowing the officer to disarm Grisham. Since it's the first time mentioned I don't know how the court views such things but since I know you can retroactively apply PC I wouldn't be surprised that you can do so with RS also.

[tomtexan]

Well I read a reporters account of the officers testimony, paraphrased of course, and there the main reason for the stop was the call and that the rifle was on a chest sling. You can argue about what difference that makes for RS but I've never heard any court cases about how it would affect RS and my searches came up with nothing. The whole point of carrying a rifle in such a manner is to be able to use it quicker like if you carried a gun at low ready. It definitely would be much more disconcerting walking up on someone carrying like that versus slung over the shoulder. Also mentioned in the second trial was that Grisham was walking on the wrong side of the road and could receive a ticket for doing so. So without anything else that would enable a custodial stop all on it's own and thus allowing the officer to disarm Grisham. Since it's the first time mentioned I don't know how the court views such things but since I know you can retroactively apply PC I wouldn't be surprised that you can do so with RS also.

I had no idea that walking on the wrong side of the road was illegal in this state. Never have heard that. Now driving on the wrong side I could understand. But walking? And which one is the wrong side? Going with the traffic or against?

[C-dub]

I'd say that based on how calmly that officer approached Grisham he wasn't too concerned about safety and the position with which that rifle was being carried. And being a soldier, that is probably how he is used to and comfortable carrying a rifle.

Which side of the road is the correct side? I thought I saw one place where it said he was walking against traffic, meaning the left side, but wasn't he on the right side in the dashcam? If that's what the RS boils down to that's pretty lame.

[EEllis]

I had no idea that walking on the wrong side of the road was illegal in this state. Never have heard that. Now driving on the wrong side I could understand. But walking? And which one is the wrong side? Going with the traffic or against?

Don't know for sure. I think that you are supposed to walk facing traffic but honestly I never knew there was any legal requirement.

[E.Marquez]

Sec. 552.006. USE OF SIDEWALK. (a) A pedestrian may not walk along and on a roadway if an adjacent sidewalk is provided and is accessible to the pedestrian.
(b) If a sidewalk is not provided, a pedestrian walking along and on a highway shall if possible walk on:
(1) the left side of the roadway; or
(2) the shoulder of the highway facing oncoming traffic.
(c) The operator of a vehicle emerging from or entering an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian approaching on a sidewalk extending across the alley, building entrance or exit, road, or driveway.

[CWOOD]

Perhaps it's time to change the thread title.

DONE

[EEllis]

I'd say that based on how calmly that officer approached Grisham he wasn't too concerned about safety and the position with which that rifle was being carried. And being a soldier, that is probably how he is used to and comfortable carrying a rifle.

Which side of the road is the correct side? I thought I saw one place where it said he was walking against traffic, meaning the left side, but wasn't he on the right side in the dashcam? If that's what the RS boils down to that's pretty lame.

Maybe the officer just didn't want Grisham to know he was concerned? That was just what was reported of the testimony so YMMV. I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with. Honestly if anything that would make RS more likely. "Well it's how I'm used to carrying my rifle in a warzone" As to the other possible charge I would agree that if that plays a part it would be a purely technical violation that they would never really ticket someone for. SO? It is well establish that cops can and do use such techniques to justify stops and it's legal. It may be lame but that's no legal defence.

[mojo84]

Sad state of affairs.

[C-dub]

I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?

[suthdj]

Exactly what I said "Railroad" not saying it ain't legal it is just wrong. JMHO. After serving as many years as he did, they force him out with no retirment that is flat out wrong.

I assume your just guessing at all this? (that's not a flame or snide comment.. just an observation, no disrespect intended)

If you can cite your source I'd love to go though what your reading.

Assuming your guessing....
1st; Admin separation has nothing to do with his retirement.
2nd; His past actions mean squat if his current actions are counter to his service obligations. As it should be.... you can be the greatest American in the history of the world last year, but be a disgrace or otherwise violate service regulations today and you deserve action.
3rd; Even if the command wanted to both separate him and deny his retirement benefits, it would take a complete separate board, convening authority, and level of approval. It's basically as big a deal as general court marshal.

Lastly, that's not railroading in any way I can see other then putting on some tinfoil. Those are black and white regulations he has access to, gets classes on, is charged with knowing and enforcing on his subordinates.. So he can not claim ignorance that he did not know his disgraceful and likely violating UCMJ actions were going to cause him issues.

Not offended, and I am no expert on UCMJ proceedings I generally stayed clean when I was in. Not to distract from this thread I will send you a PM with the rest.

[baldeagle]

I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?

That depends entirely upon whose world you are in.

[texanjoker]

I like how he is quoting the percentage of chl holders that are arrested. He just added to that statistic What will the military do now that he has been convicted of this crime?

I sincerely hope I hear about it when the wheel turns and what goes around comes around.

Wow - I am not sure what to make of your post but if that is directed at me that is pretty sad

[Keith B]

Alright, drop the attacks. If you can't discuss things without getting personal, then don't post.

Keith B
Moderator

[Beiruty]

I recommed to lock it up. There is nothing worth discussing after the conviction. If the appeal is successful then it is time for another thread.

[EEllis]

I don't see RS being affected by whatever Grisham is comfortable with.

And I am unaware of any law that dictates whether a rifle can or cannot be carried across one's front or back. Just because an officer doesn't like something doesn't make it illegal. Or does it?

Remember we are not talking about if it was legal but rather if there was RS, two separate subjects. Activities that are completely legal an provide RS.

But, in a manner of speaking it could. If "people" find that manner of carry alarming and courts find that alarm reasonable then ......